I worked with Dr. Angus McIntosh, who conducted a brilliant analysis on legislative, case law and Supreme Court decisions that affect this ongoing trial. This blog summarizes the White Paper we wrote (read White Paper) that was entered into evidence in the trial. While this blog is long, what we found will shock most readers and hopefully will eventually establish major new precedents in federal v private land ownership in the West.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

United States of America v Ammon Bundy

Ninth District Court Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

During the pre-trial hearing on June 3, 2016, Ammon Bundy claimed the federal government had no jurisdiction in the Malheur NationalWildlife Refuge (MNWR) because they gave patented title of the land to homesteaders. In response, the federal government boldly lied that they had held ownership of the property since Oregon became a state, giving them jurisdictional right to bring law enforcement and criminal charges against Bundy, et al.  At that time Bundy had no hard evidence to refute the federal government’s claim and the district court ruled that “there is not any evidence in the record that the United States ever relinquished title to the lands that comprise the MNWR.” The District Court thereby claimed it had jurisdiction and a trial was scheduled.

Although much of MNWR was homesteaded which received land patents, not all the land was homesteaded and patented. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the non-patented land as a non-occupied Indian Reservation that had strong regulations protecting migratory birds. This eventually became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. During the next thirty years several families apparently squatted on the unsurveyed refuge land and claimed ownership by adverse possession. Adverse possession occurs when an individual or a group occupies property allegedly belonging to others, claiming that the property belongs to the occupying group or individual. Most readers will probably believe that this must be illegal. But it is not, as discussed below.

Adverse Possession

The Bundy trial is not the first time the federal government claimed ownership of all the land within what is now the refuge. In 1940 the federal government claimed in District Court of the Ninth District that all the land belonged to them which led to the United States v Otley (1942) trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, the federal government claimed it owned all of the lake beds up to the meander lines and all unsurveyed lands. Therefore, the homesteaders (or subsequent owners) had no right to graze or hay the land between the meander line and the current, but highly variable, lake level as they had done for over 30 years. 

Contrary to the claims of the federal government, United States v Otley (1942), found that much of the land surrounding and including the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters was originally deeded to families under the various Homestead Acts and the Desert Land Act as land patents—potentially the strongest form of ownership. There were numerous Acts of Congress granting the homesteaders varying amounts of land to settle. Generally the size of the grant was increased with each Act from 160 acres in the late 19^th century to 640 acres in the mid-20^th century so the homesteaders had enough land to support their families.

Since the lake bed was nearly flat and the lake shallow, the declining lake level each summer exposed a lot of land that was used by the homesteaders for grazing and haying, as allowed by their land patents. To the disappointment of the federal government, Roosevelt’s executive order creating the reservation also included the words “subject to valid existing rights,” of the homesteaders. The lower Ninth District Court upheld the existing rights of the homesteaders, but did not uphold those lands acquired under adverse possession. The federal government appealed the decision to Appellate Court.

In United States v Otley (1942) the Ninth District Court of Appeals found: “The Supreme Court holds that a meandered water boundary of a non-navigable lake shown on the plat referred to in the patent made the shore of the lake the true upland boundary, and that the patent conveyed the title to the center of the lake.” (Emphasis added) (citing Hardin v. Jordan and many more)  Since the patentees owned the lakebed, they had every right to graze and hay the land between high water in the spring and low water in the fall, or to the center of the lake if the lake dried up completely—which apparently has never happened.

Most importantly, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District found in United States v Otley (1942) that since the squatters on the unsurveyed land had occupied the land for more than 10 years (the number of years required to obtain title in Oregon under adverse possession), the lands claimed by adverse possession have “valid existing rights” and therefore “are entitled to have their title quieted against both such patentees and the plaintiff.” In addition the Court found “The district court erred in making no finding with regard to the character of the adverse possession, and the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further consideration as to these adverse claimants.” In other words, the Court found that the claim of adverse possession is a valid and existing right which is also true in the United States v Ammon Bundy case in 2016.

43 U.S.C. § 1068; 43 CFR 2541.1 states that “[a]ny individual, group, or corporation authorized to hold title to land ... and who believes he has a valid claim under color of title” to attempt a claim for adverse possession against federally-owned land under the Color of Title Act.” Furthermore, according to Ammon Bundy’s attorneys in pretrial evidence, “Cases examining the doctrine of adverse possession recognize that, as soon as Defendants effectuated an “ouster” of the government, their “naked possession” in the land – even if “acquired by wrong, as by disseisin,” constituted “a title” to that property, which would continue “‘till some act be done by the rightful owner to devest the possession.’” Robinson v. Campbell, 16 U.S. 212, 224 (1818) (emphasis added) (quoting 2 Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England 196).

In other words, even if Bundy was wrong in his claim of adverse possession, he had every right to possess the refuge headquarters until the federal government challenged Bundy in civil court showing they had a legal deed to the land. Since Bundy had not possessed the land for ten years, he would have no legal authority to continue his possession and would have had to abandon his claim to adverse possession. As described in my previous blog, that is not what the federal government did. Instead of going to civil court they chose an armed response that led to LaVoy Finicum’s death.

The land claimed to have been purchased during the 1935 to 1940 period by the United States from the prior owners (inclusive of Section 35 and the Refuge Headquarters) was acquired for “resettlement” or construction of conservation projects only. It was part of over 7,000 acres of land and 150,000 acre/ft. of water rights. It was included into the local Grazing District and adjudicated into Grazing Allotments in the 1940s. It was grazed and hayed as part of local “ranch units” for the next 40 years until the ranchers were purposely flooded out in the 1980s. They were forced to leave without compensation for their allotments, forage crops, improvements, stock-water rights, or the value of the land for grazing.

Once those allotments were made they could not be reduced or changed (Sellas v Kirk, supra). Assuming the 1940s purchase of the land was legitimately done under 48 Stat 22, then the owners of those Allotments abandoned private property when they left in the 1980s. The surface limited fee Grazing Allotment being a completely separate estate from the United States mineral estate, those Allotments were then available for adverse possession.  See (Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer, supra; Watt v Western Nuclear, supra). Since the United States cannot acquire property by adverse possession (Leo Sheep Co. v United States, 440 US 668 (1979)), then the surface fee Grazing Allotment could only be acquired for inclusion in the Refuge by condemnation with consent of the State Legislature (United States v New Mexico, supra).

Resettlement Acts Specifically Deny Federal Government Jurisdiction

There is also a reason why the federal government did not want to go to civil court. In our White Paper Angus McIntosh and I found that beginning with the Act of March 3, 1933 (48 Stat 22), Congress enacted a series of statutes to buy failing, or abandoned farms (typically 160, or 320 acre homesteads), and then ‘resettle’ them in “farm management units of a size sufficient for the support of a family” (Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (BJFTA) July 22, 1937, 50 Stat 522)… This was all in response to the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. This was an era of failing and abandoned farms, bankrupt counties due to no tax revenue, high unemployment, and failing banks due to defaulted farm and ranch loans.”

Congress wanted to make it clear there was no intention to acquire any jurisdiction over the land. So, it enacted the “Act to Waive Exclusive Jurisdiction” of June 29, 1936 (49 Stat 2035):

“That the acquisition by the United States of any real property heretofore or hereafter acquired for any resettlement project or any rural-rehabilitation project for resettlement purposes heretofore or hereafter constructed with funds allotted or transferred to the Resettlement Administration pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of 1935, or any other law, shall not be held to deprive any State or political subdivision thereof of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over such property, or to impair the civil rights under the local law of the tenants or inhabitants on such property; and insofar as any such jurisdiction has been taken away from any such State or subdivision, or any such rights have been impaired, jurisdiction over any such property is hereby ceded back to such State or subdivision.”  

While there is other legislation and/or court decisions that parallels this Congressional action, the 1936 (49 Stat 2035) expressly forbids the federal government from assuming criminal or civil jurisdiction or impairing the civil rights of any individual or private group on any so-called federal land that was designated for resettlement. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and much of the surrounding private land fall under this “resettlement” category. Therefore, the federal government and the Ninth District Court have no jurisdiction—at all. They had no jurisdictional authority to set up roadblocks on Highway 395 and subsequently kill LaVoy Finicum and have no authority to bring criminal charges against the occupiers of the Malheur Refuge, and certainly had no subject matter jurisdiction to try the defendants in federal district court.

The Trial

In spite of the clear language of 49 Stat 2035, Judge Anna Brown in the Ninth District Court has chosen to ignore it and has denied the defense from saying anything about federal jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District also denied it, stating “Whether defendants have suffered any prejudice as a result of dual prosecutions can be reviewed on direct appeal from a conviction. Numerous court cases have established that if the court’s subject jurisdiction is challenged, it must be heard first before a criminal trial can proceed.[1] The reason for this is obvious. Why put a defendant through months of judicial hell and enormous costs if the district court has no judicial jurisdiction in the first place? Bundy and the other seven defendants can only address the federal criminal charges, even if the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to do so.

Separately, Judge Brown denied the defense any testimony about the Finicum killing, or Bundy’s legal use of adverse possession. While denying the defense from saying anything about the Finicum killing, Judge Brown has also allowed federal attorneys to say anything they want about the killing of Finicum thereby biasing the information the jury hears. That bias was amplified almost on a daily basis. (See Todd Macfarlane day by day recap of the trial at rangefire.us.com)

The judge allowed almost all of the government’s objections and very few of the defenses’. Writing for Redoubt News, Sheri Dovale revealed, “She [the judge] was so wrapped up in helping the prosecution” that she blurted out, “‘Objection Sustained!’  When she realized that no one had made an objection, she then said, ‘Oh, there was no objection, but I am going to sustain it anyway. I am not going to let the witness speculate.’” 

At another time Judge Brown suddenly and unilaterally changed the jury instructions in a way that further obstructed the defense. When defense attorney Mumford challenged her saying the “court is taking sides against the defense,” Judge Brown completely ignored his argument and did not even bother to address it. The trial has become so bizarre that observers are beginning to believe that Judge Brown seems to be asking for a mistrial.

---

[1] United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008); De La Maza v. United States, 215 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1954); United States v. Hall, 20 F.3d 1084, 1087 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); and others.

Finally, the land allegedly purchased by the federal government for the refuge headquarters in 1936 and 1940 could only be done if Oregon’s State Legislature approved of the purchase under Article 1, §8, cls 17 of the United States Constitution which states: “to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings...”. There is no record in evidence that Oregon ever gave this consent. Therefore, the alleged “purchase” is likely not legal and the federal government does not actually own the land upon which the refuge headquarters is located, nor any other land that was part of the various resettlement Congressional actions.

It is interesting that the federal prosecution only took six days to lay out their case. In their opening statement they said that they would provide witnesses having signed sworn affidavits that they saw criminal activity being conducted by the occupiers of the refuge headquarters. That would have taken days if not weeks. However, the prosecution never put these witnesses on the stand to testify, strongly suggesting that the prosecution was afraid of cross examination. Their case seems very weak.

It is almost a certainty that the case will be appealed to the Ninth District Appeals Court regardless of the outcome of the current trial. According to attorney Todd McFarland, who is closely following the case: “The appeal can include anything the defendants attempted to address at trial. If they raised and attempted to address those issues, but the judge made legal rulings excluding that subject matter, etc., those rulings are part of what is challenged on appeal.” 

Therefore, the evidence against federal jurisdiction and Bundy’s legal use of adverse possession is allowed in the Appeals Court and could be very damaging to the federal government’s claim of absolute power over much of the land in the West. The federal government can’t let that happen and is taking every action, including lying, to force the case to a favorable outcome for them so they can keep their power. As they have done in the past, expect the federal government to use every legal action they can to delay the proceedings and bankrupt the defendants.

Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

---

[1] United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008); De La Maza v. United States, 215 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1954); United States v. Hall, 20 F.3d 1084, 1087 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); and others.

I worked with Dr. Angus McIntosh, who conducted a brilliant analysis on legislative, case law and Supreme Court decisions that affect this ongoing trial. This blog summarizes the White Paper (read White Paper) that was entered into evidence in the trial. While this blog is long, what we found will shock most readers and should eventually establish major new precedents in federal v private land ownership in the West.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

United States of America v Ammon Bundy

Ninth District Court Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

During the pre-trial hearing on June 3, 2016, Ammon Bundy claimed the federal government had no jurisdiction in the Malheur NationalWildlife Refuge (MNWR) because they gave patented title of the land to homesteaders. In response, the federal government boldly lied that they had held ownership of the property since Oregon became a state, giving them jurisdictional right to bring law enforcement and criminal charges against Bundy, et al.  At that time Bundy had no hard evidence to refute the federal government’s claim and the district court ruled that “there is not any evidence in the record that the United States ever relinquished title to the lands that comprise the MNWR.” The District Court thereby claimed it had jurisdiction and a trial was scheduled.

Although much of MNWR was homesteaded which received land patents, not all the land was homesteaded and patented. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the non-patented land as a non-occupied Indian Reservation that had strong regulations protecting migratory birds. This eventually became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. During the next thirty years several families apparently squatted on the unsurveyed refuge land and claimed ownership by adverse possession. Adverse possession occurs when an individual or a group occupies property allegedly belonging to others, claiming that the property belongs to the occupying group or individual. Most readers will probably believe that this must be illegal. But it is not, as discussed below.

This trial is not the first time the federal government claimed ownership of all the land within what is now the refuge. In 1940 the federal government claimed in District Court of the Ninth District that all the land belonged to them which led to the United States v Otley (1942) trial in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, the federal government claimed it owned all of the lake beds up to the meander lines and all unsurveyed lands. Therefore, the homesteaders (or subsequent owners) had no right to graze or hay the land between the meander line and the current, but highly variable, lake level as they had done for over 30 years. 

Contrary to the claims of the federal government, United States v Otley (1942), found that much of the land surrounding and including the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters was originally deeded to families under the various Homestead Acts and the Desert Land Act as land patents—potentially the strongest form of ownership. There were numerous Acts of Congress granting the homesteaders varying amounts of land to settle. Generally the size of the grant was increased with each Act from 160 acres in the late 19^th century to 640 acres in the mid-20^th century so the homesteaders had enough land to support their families.

Since the lake bed was nearly flat and the lake shallow, the declining lake level each summer exposed a lot of land that was used by the homesteaders for grazing and haying, as allowed by their land patents. To the disappointment of the federal government, Roosevelt’s executive order creating the reservation also included the words “subject to valid existing rights,” of the homesteaders. The lower Ninth District Court upheld the existing rights of the homesteaders, but did not uphold those lands acquired under adverse possession. The federal government appealed the decision to Appellate Court.

In United States v Otley (1942) the Ninth District Court of Appeals found: “The Supreme Court holds that a meandered water boundary of a non-navigable lake shown on the plat referred to in the patent made the shore of the lake the true upland boundary, and that the patent conveyed the title to the center of the lake.” (Emphasis added) (citing Hardin v. Jordan and many more)  Since the patentees owned the lakebed, they had every right to graze and hay the land between high water in the spring and low water in the fall, or to the center of the lake if the lake dried up completely—which apparently has never happened.

Most importantly, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District found in United States v Otley (1942) that since the squatters on the unsurveyed land had occupied the land for more than 10 years (the number of years required to obtain title in Oregon under adverse possession), the lands claimed by adverse possession have “valid existing rights” and therefore “are entitled to have their title quieted against both such patentees and the plaintiff.” In addition the Court found “The district court erred in making no finding with regard to the character of the adverse possession, and the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further consideration as to these adverse claimants.” In other words, the Court found that the claim of adverse possession is a valid and existing right which is also true in the United States v Ammon Bundy case in 2016.

43 U.S.C. § 1068; 43 CFR 2541.1 states that “[a]ny individual, group, or corporation authorized to hold title to land ... and who believes he has a valid claim under color of title” to attempt a claim for adverse possession against federally-owned land under the Color of Title Act.” Furthermore, according to Ammon Bundy’s attorneys in pretrial evidence, “Cases examining the doctrine of adverse possession recognize that, as soon as Defendants effectuated an “ouster” of the government, their “naked possession” in the land – even if “acquired by wrong, as by disseisin,” constituted “a title” to that property, which would continue “‘till some act be done by the rightful owner to devest the possession.’” Robinson v. Campbell, 16 U.S. 212, 224 (1818) (emphasis added) (quoting 2 Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England 196).

In other words, even if Bundy was wrong in his claim of adverse possession, he had every right to possess the refuge headquarters until the federal government challenged Bundy in civil court showing they had a legal deed to the land. Since Bundy had not possessed the land for ten years, he would have no legal authority to continue his possession and would have had to abandon his claim to adverse possession. As described in my previous blog, that is not what the federal government did. Instead of going to civil court they chose an armed response that led to LaVoy Finicum’s death.

The land claimed to have been purchased during this period by the United States from the prior owners (inclusive of Section 35 and the Refuge Headquarters) was acquired for “resettlement” or construction of conservation projects only. It was part of over 7,000 acres of land and 150,000 acre/ft. of water rights. It was included into the local Grazing District and adjudicated into Grazing Allotments in the 1940s. It was grazed and hayed as part of local “ranch units” for the next 40 years until the ranchers were purposely flooded out in the 1980s. They were forced to leave without compensation for their allotments, forage crops, improvements, stock-water rights, or the value of the land for grazing.

Once those allotments were made they could not be reduced or changed (Sellas v Kirk, supra). Assuming the 1940s purchase of the land was legitimately done under 48 Stat 22, then the owners of those Allotments abandoned private property when they left in the 1980s. The surface limited fee Grazing Allotment being a completely separate estate from the United States mineral estate, those Allotments were then available for adverse possession.  See (Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer, supra; Watt v Western Nuclear, supra). Since the United States cannot acquire property by adverse possession (Leo Sheep Co. v United States, 440 US 668 (1979)), then the surface fee Grazing Allotment could only be acquired for inclusion in the Refuge by condemnation with consent of the State Legislature (United States v New Mexico, supra).

There is also a reason why the federal government did not want to go to civil court. In our White Paper Angus McIntosh and I found that beginning with the Act of March 3, 1933 (48 Stat 22), Congress enacted a series of statutes to buy failing, or abandoned farms (typically 160, or 320 acre homesteads), and then ‘resettle’ them in “farm management units of a size sufficient for the support of a family” (Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (BJFTA) July 22, 1937, 50 Stat 522)… This was all in response to the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. This was an era of failing and abandoned farms, bankrupt counties due to no tax revenue, high unemployment, and failing banks due to defaulted farm and ranch loans.”

Congress wanted to make it clear there was no intention to acquire any jurisdiction over the land. So, it enacted the “Act to Waive Exclusive Jurisdiction” of June 29, 1936 (49 Stat 2035):

“That the acquisition by the United States of any real property heretofore or hereafter acquired for any resettlement project or any rural-rehabilitation project for resettlement purposes heretofore or hereafter constructed with funds allotted or transferred to the Resettlement Administration pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act of 1935, or any other law, shall not be held to deprive any State or political subdivision thereof of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over such property, or to impair the civil rights under the local law of the tenants or inhabitants on such property; and insofar as any such jurisdiction has been taken away from any such State or subdivision, or any such rights have been impaired, jurisdiction over any such property is hereby ceded back to such State or subdivision.”  

While there are dozens of other legislation and/or court decisions that parallels this Congressional action, the 1936 (49 Stat 2035) expressly forbids the federal government from assuming criminal or civil jurisdiction or impairing the civil rights of any individual or private group on any so-called federal land that was designated for resettlement. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and much of the surrounding private land fall under this “resettlement” category. Therefore, the federal government and the Ninth District Court have no jurisdiction—at all. They had no jurisdictional authority to set up roadblocks on Highway 395 and subsequently kill LaVoy Finicum and have no authority to bring criminal charges against the occupiers of the Malheur Refuge, and certainly had no subject matter jurisdiction to try the defendants in federal district court.

The Trial

In spite of the clear language of 49 Stat 2035, Judge Anna Brown in the Ninth District Court has chosen to ignore it and has denied the defense from saying anything about federal jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District also denied it, stating “Whether defendants have suffered any prejudice as a result of dual prosecutions can be reviewed on direct appeal from a conviction. Numerous court cases have established that if the court’s subject jurisdiction is challenged, it must be heard first before a criminal trial can proceed.[1] Bundy and the other seven defendants can only address the federal criminal charges, even if the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to do so.

Separately, Judge Brown denied the defense any testimony about the Finicum killing, or Bundy’s legal use of adverse possession. While denying the defense from saying anything about the Finicum killing, Judge Brown has also allowed federal attorneys to say anything they want about the killing of Finicum thereby biasing the information the jury hears. That bias was amplified almost on a daily basis.

The judge allowed almost all of the government’s objections and very few of the defenses’. Writing for Redoubt News, Sheri Dovale said, “She became so focused on supporting the government’s objections that once she blurted out, ‘Objection Sustained!’ When she realized that no one had made an objection, she then said, ‘Oh, there was no objection, but I am going to sustain it anyway. I am not going to let the witness speculate.’” The trial has become so bizarre that Judge Brown seems to be asking for a mistrial.

---

[1] United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008); De La Maza v. United States, 215 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1954); United States v. Hall, 20 F.3d 1084, 1087 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); and others.

Finally, the land allegedly purchased by the federal government for the refuge headquarters in 1936 and 1940 could only be done if Oregon’s State Legislature approved of the purchase under Article 1, §8, cls 17 of the United States Constitution which states: “to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings...”. There is no record in evidence that Oregon ever gave this consent. Therefore, the alleged “purchase” is likely not legal and the federal government does not actually own the land upon which the refuge headquarters is located, nor any other land that was part of the various resettlement Congressional actions.

It is interesting that the federal prosecution only took six days to lay out their case. In their opening statement they said that they would provide witnesses having signed sworn affidavits that they saw criminal activity being conducted by the occupiers of the refuge headquarters. That would have taken days if not weeks. However, the prosecution never put these witnesses on the stand to testify, strongly suggesting that the prosecution was afraid of cross examination. Their case seems very weak.

It is almost a certainty that the case will be appealed to the Ninth District Appeals Court regardless of the outcome of the current trial. According to attorney Todd McFarland, who is closely following the case: “The appeal can include anything the defendants attempted to address at trial. If they raised and attempted to address those issues, but the judge made legal rulings excluding that subject matter, etc., those rulings are part of what is challenged on appeal.” 

Therefore, the evidence against federal jurisdiction and Bundy’s legal use of adverse possession is allowed in the Appeals Court and could be very damaging to the federal government’s claim of absolute power over much of the land in the West. The federal government can’t let that happen and is taking every action, including lying, to force the case to a favorable outcome for them so they can keep their power. As they have done in the past, expect the federal government to use every legal action they can to delay the proceedings and bankrupt the defendants.

Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

---

[1] United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008); De La Maza v. United States, 215 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1954); United States v. Hall, 20 F.3d 1084, 1087 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); and others.

Was LaVoy Finicum’s Death Planned by the FBI?

Captured shot of roadblock from released FBI video. It shows Finicum 

(green circle) just after being allegedly shot with foam bullet by FBI agent

(red circle) fleeing to hide his or her involvement in order to create the 
perception that Finicum was going for his gun instead of involuntarily 
reacting to reach for the foam bullet wound. FBI agent in orange circle 
shot and killed Finicum seconds later after the foam bullet shooter was
hidden behind one of the blockade vehicles. See forensic video..

It’s been awhile since I have posted on my blog. I have been working on the Democrat AGs’ efforts to deny so-called “climate deniers” of their Constitutional rights by bringing RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges against them. The results will be a feature article in Range magazine in early November. Then I was asked to provide expert testimony in the United States v Ammon Bundy, et al. so-called criminal case in which Bundy and others were alleged to illegally occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County Oregon. During this time LaVoy Finicum was killed by the FBI. I recommend the reader view a thought provoking video revealing forensic evidence that Finicum’s death may have actually been planned by the FBI.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D. 

Background of the Hammond Arrests and Prison Sentencing

After suffering decades on unbelievable abuse by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Dwight (father) and Steven (son) Hammond were charged with terrorism by arson in 2011 under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. The reason: setting a backfire to protect their home and winter range for their cattle from being destroyed by fires started by lightning strikes, and the customary burning of grass to stimulate its growth—a custom going back hundreds of years. In June, 2012, they were convicted. Dwight was sentenced for three months and Steven a year in prison.

After being released, the BLM filed a court case in pure vindictiveness, demanding that these “terrorists” serve the full five years minimum prison terms. The Hammonds are both back in federal prison. (For more on this unbelievable story, click here) Seeing this injustice, Ammon Bundy, LaVoy Finicum and a group of his colleagues traveled to and occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in support of the Hammonds. That’s where I pick up the story that I summarize below.

Summary of the Occupancy Timeline of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

On January 2, 2016 armed individuals took possession of the headquarters Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County Oregon allegedly led by Ammon Bundy. Bundy repeatedly stated that the purpose of the occupation was to help the Hammonds by establishing Adverse Possession of the Refuge. Adverse possession occurs when an individual or a group occupies property allegedly belonging to others, claiming that the property belongs to the occupying group or individual. Most readers will probably believe that this must be illegal. It is not. Literally multiple dozens of court cases affirm that it is legal. More on this in my next blog. (To read a comprehensive discussion of this and other legal arguments of the Bundy case, read the White Paper written by Dr. Angus McIntosh and myself (here)[1] that is now in evidence in the trial.)

Again, dozens of court cases affirmed that all the federal government had to do was to file a claim in civil court and show evidence of their ownership. Once their legal ownership was established, Ammon and crew would have had to abandon their claim of adverse possession and leave the refuge peacefully. That is not what the federal government did, however. Instead, in an apparent effort to establish their absolute authority, they brought in armed federal and hired agents to intimidate and force Bundy’s group into submission. Like Ruby Ridge and Waco, that action resulted in tragedy.

On January 26 Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was shot and killed while allegedly avoiding arrest by the Oregon State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Finicum and others were traveling to attend a public meeting with the sheriff in a neighboring county when roadblocks forced their vehicle off the road into deep snow. This was all videotaped with no sound by the FBI from a helicopter. Law enforcement claims Finicum, who was leaving his car and traversing snow up to his knees with hands up, was charging the FBI and State Police while reaching for a handgun in his jacket. He was then shot three times and killed by an unnamed agent.

A later federal investigation found the shooting was justified. However, unknown by the FBI and State Police at the time, a separate video with sound was being taken inside the crew cab pickup. When the two videos were synchronized, it allowed a separate detailed but anonymous forensic analysis that provides compelling evidence that the FBI actually murdered Finicum. The forensic evidence showed that the FBI and State Police actually set up the roadblock for the sole purpose of forcing Finicum to appear to charge the FBI, thereby justifying their murdering him. This stunning forensic analysis of the videos can be viewed here.[2] Is this forensic analysis correct? It seems to be.

Without the forensic analysis the sequence of events seem to be disjointed, even chaotic. With the step by step forensic evidence it showed a pre-planned, well-coordinated strategy to set up and murder not only LaVoy but everyone in the pickup. What was disjointed before comes into sharp focus in the forensic analysis. After viewing the forensic evidence, former Washington DC prosecuting attorney, Fred Kelly Grant wrote “AS AN OLD, CURMUDEONLY, DISTRUSTING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY I WOULD CHARGE THAT LAVOY FINICUM WAS MURDERED IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITH PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION. (Emphasis original) Grant went on to say “On the basis of the video, as a prosecutor, I would file first degree, premeditated murder charges against officers who shot the deadly shots and at least accomplice before the fact against the officer who fired the foam bullet that caused Finicum to put his hands to the left of his chest.” Fred Kelly Grant is a personal friend of this author’s and I have never heard him exaggerate. The evidence is that compelling.

Following Finicum’s death most of the other occupiers withdrew from the refuge. By January 28 only four occupiers remained. The remaining occupiers peacefully surrendered to authorities on February 11. Over two dozen occupiers have been charged with federal offenses including conspiracy to obstruct federal officers, firearms violations, theft, and depredation of federal property. As of August 15, twelve have pleaded guilty, while others are awaiting trial, including Ammon Bundy. Yet, according to the in-depth analysis by Dr. Angus McIntosh and me, the FBI had no legal jurisdiction to do anything they did, and the U.S. Ninth District Court had no jurisdiction to charge and try the 24 defendants, nine of which are now on trial. More on this in my next blog.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

---

[1] http://www.americaplundered.com/mcintosh-coffman-paper.html  

[2] http://rangefire.us/2016/09/23/startling-thought-provoking-new-analysis-of-lavoy-finicum-shooting/

Cool or Cold following 2015-2016 El Nino Collapse (Updated 7/1/2016)

NOAA recently released the following statement: “After dominating the tropical Pacific for more than a year, El Niño ended in May 2016. Near- or below-average temperatures existed in 3 out of 4 ENSO monitoring regions of the tropical Pacific. And for the first time in 2016, wind and air pressure patterns were consistent with neutral conditions. There’s a 75% chance that La Niña will develop by winter.”

NOAA also says that “ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) is one of the most important climate phenomena on Earth due to its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe.” An El Nino is created when the Pacific Ocean near the equator is not able to dissipate heat as efficiently as it normally does. This time around the El Nino is collapsing faster than normal with concurrent drops in ocean surface and land temperature.

What frustrates those who know what is happening are the outrageous claims that the record warm temperatures in 2015 and 2016 were caused by climate change – with nary a word about El Nino. Climatologist and oceanographer Dr. Fredolin Tangang of the University Kebangsaan Malaysia and vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2008 to 2015, warned that El Nino and climate change are not related. Says Dr. Tangang, “There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change.”
 
Of course, the news about the record-breaking heat of 2015 and 2016 allegedly caused by climate change is now a fact in the public’s mind. The scientists and radical environmentalists feeding the false information to an eager media knew that climate change was not the cause, yet they did it anyway. The bottom line—they successfully lied. That has become the norm for any news on climate change. Don’t believe a word they say.



The June 2016 anomaly is well below the dashed red line which represents the average cooling rate required for the rest of 2016 to tie 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record.

The equatorial ocean and atmospheric temperature comparison from January to June 2016 clearly show that we are entering into a La Nina event that should mature late summer or early fall. Like the La Nina that followed the super El Nino of 2007-2008, the emerging La Nina is likely to be cool and long-lasting.  The global temperature has dropped a “spectacular” -0.37^oC in two months –the second largest drop in the record. For 2016 to be warmer than the warmest year of 1998, the temperature must decline much slower than it is (See graphic above). From 2007 until late 2015 there was no statistical global warming. Except this time the earth may not recover to its former warmth and may, in fact plummet From 2007 until late 2015 there was no statistical global warming. Except this time the earth may not recover to its former warmth and may, in fact plummet.
 

The number of sunspots per 11 year solar cycle has been
sharply declining for the past three cycles. Some solar scientists 
are warning there may be a maximum of 30-60 sunspots in
cycles  25 and 26—the same as occurred in the Little Ice Age.

A growing number of scientists are concerned because the sun is going into a rare 206 year  “Bicentennial  Cycle” of little to no sunspot activity accompanied by a decades-long deep cooling period. The current 11 year solar cycle (Number 24) has the lowest maximum number of sunspots (116) since cycle 14 in 1906 which had a maximum of 107. The “normal” maximum number of sunspots in a solar cycle is 150 to 200. Even at 116 sunspots there have been only a few cycles that had smaller maximum sunspot activity than Cycle 24. Those cycles were concurrent with what history calls the “Little Ice Age.” Cycle 25 which should start in about 6 years, could have much lower sunspot numbers—and colder temperatures. 





A low maximum number of sunspots have a high correlation with

very cold periods in earth's history. Although Galileo didn't perfect

the telescope to be able to actually see sunspots until the

early 1600s, and sunspots were not continuously counted until

1850, there is ample evidence that earth's cold cycles were

correlated with low sunspot activity long before the 1600s.





Why is this important? During the Little Ice Age (approximately from 1300 to 1825) there were massive famines, disease and misery. Hopefully, modern agriculture can overcome the short growing seasons and modern medicine and pest control can keep plagues under control. However, a lot depends on how cold it gets, or even if it gets cold. That is the problem with trying to predict future climate—even when the 206 year cycle of cold is 100 percent correlated with very low sunspot activity. Global warming alarmists seem to believe they have 20-20 foresight to predict catastrophic warming using grossly inaccurate computer models. These climate models have generally predicted temperatures that are 300 percent greater than the actual temperature they are supposed to be predicting. For more information on this potential cold cycle see my article in the 2016 Winter Issue of Range magazine.

Dr. Michael Coffman

 

 

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtmlhttps://www.climate.gov/enso

Good News You Won’t Find in the Liberal Press

 

    Chances are you’ve never heard that U.S. carbon emissions have plummeted since about 2007 and are now at 1994 levels. As important, as a percentage of total global CO2 emissions, the U.S. will make up a small amount. All you ever hear in the liberal press is how bad the carbon emissions are in the good ‘ol USA, giving the impression those emissions are skyrocketing.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has issued several reports the last few months showing how the U.S. is not a major contributor of CO2 emissions today, but its emission contribution will decline significantly through 2040. First, the U.S. emissions declined from 6,000 million metric tons in 2007 to 5,280 in 2015, a drop of 12 percent. No other nation comes close to this reduction. The EIA also found that much of that change has “occurred in the electric power sector because of the decreased use of coal and the increased use of natural gas for electricity generation.”

Before 2007 most of the U.S. emissions from electricity production were from coal, some from natural gas and minor amounts from biomass and other sources. After 2007 use of coal sharply declined and was replaced by natural gas, which emits far less carbon than coal. The use of wind and solar increased substantially (made possible by huge government subsidies) making the “other” category almost zero. Even though the use of electricity remained relatively constant, the total emissions of CO2 by fossil fuels declined to 1994 levels, primarily because of natural gas and a lesser reduction due to renewables. 

Global

On the global scale it is readily apparent that the U.S. emissions (bottom, dark blue) remain static and but a small proportion of the total global emissions. Conversely, the global emissions increase by

one-third between 2012 and 2040, almost entirely driven by the non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) developing nations. In 2012 the non-OECD nations emitted 46 percent, while the OECD nations emitted 54 percent. By 2040 the non-OECD nation’s share of emissions jumps to 68 percent with the OECD nations share reduced to 32 percent, a decline of 22 percent.

China and India account for the largest increases. By 2040 U.S. emissions will only be 22 percent of that of China and only 11 percent of that of the entire world. Both nations have very active programs to build coal-fired electrical plants, with China bringing online some 2.5 new coal-fired plants a month. This has created so much smog that the phrase “the brown cloud” was coined. The brown cloud has spread over SE Asia accompanied by citizens having to wearing masks during the worst conditions. Yet, the Paris agreement allows China to postpone any CO2 reductions until 2030.

Having said the non-OECD nation’s account for almost all future increases, they have every right to improve their citizen’s lives by producing more electricity. They have no choice. To expect them to use expensive green energy is absurd. A major global study by the International Renewable Energy Agency found “that many developing countries made huge strides towards deploying renewable technologies over the past decade — but this rise is now leveling off. Instead, these countries are turning towards fossil fuels to meet the energy demands of their citizens. 

Green Energy Benefits are Grossly Overblown

Another major very detailed study by Utah State’s Institute of Political Economy found that every cost estimate of wind power is on average 48 percent lower than its true cost. When all the numerous and very complex cost inputs are considered, the true cost of wind power is $149 per mega watt-hour of power – far greater than fossil fuels.

While proponents of renewable energy brag about how renewables are competitive with fossil fuels, the full costs of these renewables are greatly underestimated. They can only be competitive if the government gives them huge government subsidies paid by you taxpayers. In one subsidy, the Production Tax Credit (PTC), costs $39 per mega watt-hour and is guaranteed for a period of ten years for each power producer. So dependent are green energy producers on this subsidy that the report claims “If the PTC permanently expires in 2016, it is unlikely there will be any new wind installations.” Yet, you will not read this in the liberal press.

The point is that renewable energy is still very expensive and is not yet ready for prime time. Yet, it is being forced on citizens using deceptive practices. Germany and England are slowly awakening to the fact that their electricity costs have risen by over 70 percent because of renewable energy; creating an entirely new class of poverty-stricken citizens in what is called fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is variously defined as a family that can no longer keep their house warm, or they have to spend more than ten percent of their income on electrical energy.

The point is that governments and the liberal media are ignoring the positive things that are happening, like declining levels of U.S. CO2 emissions, and grossly over-exaggerating renewable benefits. This is not academic. President Obama’s plan for reducing CO2 emissions will have a devastating impact on America’s economy and will only reduce CO2’s emissions by less than 0.01^oC. This is further dwarfed by China’s and other non-OECD nations’ increased emissions. In a word, it is insane to continue our renewable energy policy on the false belief that all our economic pain will do any good.

Michael Coffman, PH.D.

The End of the US Dollar as We Know It

 

For years I have written articles explaining how the US dollar and financial system is in a state of crisis and a collapse is inevitable—as early as 2016. Although I didn’t say it, I believed the collapse would occur in 2015. I was wrong and could be wrong again. However, a rapidly growing number of highly respected financial individuals and firms are saying the same thing, so I guess I am in good company. One of those institutions is Stansberry Research, whose founder has had an enviable record of forecasting major financial events.

 

The world has been on a spending binge by going into debt. That includes the US. Consider that:

·        In the six months that have passed since then-retiring House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cut a budget deal with President Barack Obama that suspended the legal limit on the federal debt until March 15, 2017, the federal debt has increased by more than $1 trillion.

 

·        It took the US 216 years to create the first $8.5 trillion in debt... then just 8 more years to double that amount.

 

·        The US National Debt, now at $19.26 trillion, is on schedule to nearly double during the Obama administration. 

·        If you include local, state, corporate and personal debt, Stansberry warns that our total debt is an unbelievable $65 trillion, up from $55 trillion in 2009.

·       Even more alarming is the realization that the Federal Reserve (Fed) is buying up to 70 percent of US Treasury Bonds with money it created out of thin air. That’s like loaning yourself a million dollars that you don’t have and never will.

  ·   Consider that the Fed literally increased the dollar money supply by 400 percent since 2006—again out of thin air. The adjacent graph shows what has taken place over the past few years with the U.S. dollar is something straight out of Weimar Germany... or the last 20 years in Zimbabwe

  ·   The number of families on food stamps has essentially doubled during the Obama administration.

  ·     Roughly 75% of all Americans live from paycheck to paycheck with essentially no savings.

  ·    “We're looking at a collapse in corporate bonds” claims Stansberry, “plummeting oil and commodity prices.”

·       Research shows the "too big to fail" banks, the top five largest financial institutions (the ones that were bailed out in 2008), are now 25% bigger than they were back then, and more dangerous than ever.

·       Private businesses have taken on more debt than any time in the past 12 years, and an incredible 863 companies that have had their credit rating downgraded last year... the most since 2009.

·       Globally since 2009 world debt has increased by $57 trillion. Twenty years ago global debt of the G20 was $40 trillion. It skyrocketed to $230 trillion today—nearly an 800 percent increase.

·    In recent months Stansberry has seen nearly $8 trillion disappear from world stock markets... and a whopping 70% of investors lost money in 2015. Even Warren Buffett lost $11 billion dollars.  

Lear Capital has been warning for more than a year that “something big” is about to happen. They provide a list of banks and financial institutions that are stockpiling massive amounts of gold and silver while telling their customers that investing in precious metals is not a good idea. Goldman Sachs and HSBC have both stockpiled 7.1 tons of gold by mid-summer, 2015. At $1268 per ounce (price on May 9, 2016), 7.1 tons is $263 million.

This is only a small part of the suicide cliff the US is racing towards. How did it happen? Stansberry states the obvious: “This is what happens when our government embarks on a gross, out-of-control experiment, expanding the money supply 400% in just six years, and more than doubling our national debt since 2006.”

American citizens may not know the details of the rot our politicians of both political parties have put us in. However, they know the ‘establishment’ is guilty of something massive. It is no wonder why the American people are rejecting ‘establishment’ candidates in this year’s presidential election.

Assuming Clinton and Trump will be the two candidates in the general election, which one would do better in minimizing the horrible consequences of a collapsing dollar and economy? Clinton seems more interested in women’s rights and big government, but has little experience dealing with hard financial issues. Trump has experience in business related financial issues but is constantly changing his mind on key problems impacting the nation. He has the best chance of getting the nation through this financial crisis, if he would stay on one path and not personally demonize those who disagree with him.

This is the choice you have. Choose wisely.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.